Petitioner sought mandamus directing respondents to grant family pension and related dues of her deceased husband. Court noted belated filing after 34 years and absence of response to earlier representations. Petition disposed without issuing writ, advising petitioner to pursue claim before authorities.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5284 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Sharda Devi Ojha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition has been filed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner alongwith pre and post dues of her deceased husband Brajendra Kumar Ojha, who died on 10.6.1986 while in harness in the office of Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari, D.P.A.P., Sirathu, Allahabad.
A perusal of the assertions made in the writ petition reveals that the son of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Sharma initially staked a claim for compassionate appointment followed by filing of Writ Petition No.31491 of 1995. It seems that the said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. The respondents rejected his claim by order dated 5.6.1996. The petitioner claims that she has been regularly making representations to the authorities to pay the dues and also family pension and also grant compassionate appointment to her son but none of her requests were heeded to.
As noted above, the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1986. In 1995, son of the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming compassionate appointment. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court with direction to the respondents to consider his claim. His claim was rejected by order dated 5.6.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state whether the said order was ever challenged or has become final. There is no indication in the entire petition that any of the representations allegedly made by the petitioner staking claim for family pension was ever responded to by the respondents. The instant writ petition has now been filed after 34 years of death of her deceased husband. At such belated stage, this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus, as prayed for in the instant petition, but leaves it open to the petitioner to pursue her claim, if admissible under law, before the authorities.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 27.7.2020/SL
Digitally signed by Manoj Kumar Gupta Date: 2020.07.27 14:41:17 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for family pension is maintainable after 34 years of the deceased husband's death.
Whether mandamus should be issued to direct authorities to consider a belated claim for pension.
Smt. Sharda Devi Ojha
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
